The difference between a democratic government and an authoritarian one is basically the difference in which each selects its leaders.

The script followed by democracies is an electoral process into which the governed select their leaders and establish them in a office for an agreed period of time. Leaders of an authoritarian regime are in reality nothing more than winners in a contest of military strength, who proceed to change rules to assure their tenure with no thought of further plebiscites.

Before we pat ourselves on the back for our long "history of establishing and maintaining democratic governance, we need to start recognizing that the system we proudly hail has become so badly damaged that it barely passes for much more than a flawed process of the founding fathers' original concept.

The system of governance found today in both Washington and Jefferson City is composed of a hodgepodge of multi amended rules and regulations that serve to change the definition of our original process, creating a spoils system for incumbency.

No longer do the governed truly and realistically select their leadership in either state or federal capitals. We, the voters, have today assumed the role of mere confirmers of a process that begins years before we actually march into the polls to confirm what we have already been told and what most suspected long before election day.

Elections today, rather than being decided by every citizens are nothing short of a confirmation of the fact that Candidate A raised more money and purchased more television time than Candidate B. Modern elections are based not on the qualifications of the candidate but on the size of his contributions account. In ways undreamed of by even an experienced practitioner in buying elections, such as Tom Pendergast of Kansas City, today's campaigns are about money and its ability to buy all important TV air time.

One only need go back to state campaigns in the 1980s to recognize the overpowering presence of money in state elections. In far too many of the primary and general election campaigns in the past two decades, the winner has been the candidate who could secure more money and buy more TV commercials than his opponent. The result has been that we have established in office numerous candidates who were less qualified than their opponents, and, in some instances, actually chosen candidates who were not at all qualified to hold the public office they sought. We have embraced the theory so completely that we no longer recognize the fact that, on occasions when the better candidate was also the one who was the richest, we have actually been oblivious to our luck and good fortune.

The same has often proved true in national elections, although in these instances, it is the combined ability of the candidate plus his or her political party that establishes the winners. But, once again, the determining factor is not the proven ability of candidates to occupy office, but the overriding factor of campaign cash and either its abundance or paucity.

To say that ambitious politicians prefer the cash system to the qualification one is obvious. A candidate lacking both proper knowledge and the intellectual or moral, or both, wherewithal' to be an outstanding public servant will naturally opt for the current practice. Even those who may be qualified but hold membership in a party that has defaulted its responsibilities to the public will naturally prefer the cash-over-qualification practice.

At the state level, party allegiance has slightly less influence for two reasons. The first is the traditional independence of a majority of Missouri's electorate, and we have consistently displayed that independence when we have selected, for example, a Republican governor and a Democratic secretary of state.

Despite this commendable independence, however, we have gone down the road most traveled by electing candidates who have been able to raise more funds than their opponents. Today, we even handicap candidates, even years before the actual election years. The most recent example is the constant media reference to the fact that one of the Democrats' gubernatorial hopefuls, Bob Holden, had outraised his expected opponent, Roger Wilson, by a margin of two to one. Even before filing had begun; the media began handicapping the candidates, not on experience and ability to run state government. The basis for setting the odds was each candidate's contributions total.

Has there been a candidate for president or governor or the Missouri assembly in the past 20 years who has overlooked mentioning the need for campaign reform? I can't name one, and if one exists, he must have just dropped in from Mars.

Mentioning reform and actually attempting reform are two very different, and seemingly contradictory, things. Remember during the last presidential campaign when Bill Clinton and Bob Dole both agreed that, if elected, they would "fix" the system. Dole may have meant it; although he had spent, if m~emory recalls, something approaching 30 years in a branch of government that had the power of change. Clinton, on hand, despite pledges with Newt Gingrich, couldn't serious about reform. He has barely lifted a finger.

At the state level, we actually had two reform measures, one by initiative petition and one from legislative empowerment. The rules of neither have remained intact, with the last remnant probably due for cancellation by court ruling.

Reform will require a constitutional amendment, demanded by the real losers, the voters. We must change constitutional law so that giving huge sums of money to influence elections is no longer considered a right to free speech. Until then, the true majority will be outvoted by an affluent minority. The will of the people has become the voice of the turtle.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.